DON WILLIAMS, CHIEF EXECUTIVE, PI GLOBAL
No. A number of things strike me about the court's judgment on this case.
How a bunch of legal experts can have the faintest idea of how brand identity works, when many in the marketing industry struggle, is beyond me.
But I'd be more worried if I were Orange or Vodafone, both of which have single-minded and powerful visual identities, whereas O2 has what I would call a 'campaign visual'.
The ruling reinforces how vital it is that brand owners create and defend robust identities that are distinctive, ownable and protectable. A trademark is of huge strategic value to a company and is subject to massive investment. The thought that a competitor can trade off it is nonsense.
GARY LEIH, CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE, OGILVY UK
Maybe. Properly used, comparative advertising can be of great value - just think of the Avis 'We try harder' campaign, in which the number two in the market sought to gain advantage by comparing itself with the dominant player in a witty and engaging way, without having to use its rival's imagery.
The problem is that much comparative advertising sinks to below-the-belt blows which, if anything, do more damage to the attacker than the attacked.
Advertising is one of the last legal ways to take advantage of the weaknesses of your rivals, which is great. However, I think that stooping to the appropriation of other people's logos or iconography is not just unfair, it is unjust.
CHRIS COWPE, CO-FOUNDER, THE CAFFEINE PARTNERSHIP
Maybe. Brands do consensually share the stage sometimes - joint ventures and co-sponsorship are obvious examples. The problem arises when permission is not sought.
Fortunately, in these instances we have established principles to guide us. Such use should be legal and truthful, and neither confusing or misleading.
The judgment in the 3 case seems to have used these principles to find in its favour.
Comparative advertising has its place. Consumers make their own comparisons as they select and use products. If a rival's logo is used within these principles, it is surely appropriate. Still, the question remains - is it worth the risks?
RICHARD TOLLEY, GROUP MARKETING DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR, DAIRY CREST
Yes. Comparative advertising is competition at its most raw, and the practice is allowed when it leaves consumers better-informed.
However, many people would disagree, and most cite one of two reasons. The first is to avoid 'advertising your competitor', but it should not be difficult to make the ad your own. It is essentially a challenger strategy, so it needs to be challenging. The second reason is that it is not 'British'. But so are a lot of things, like our car industry.
Dairy Crest has used ads to point out that Anchor butter is kept frozen on a boat for weeks, while our Country Life brand is freshly churned in Britain. Would we have used Anchor's logo then? Absolutely.
Comments